Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Hopefully this thread will put this tired old dilemma to bed once and for all. Somehow I doubt it will :wink:.

The Euthyphro Dilemma (ED hereon) seeks to show that there is an absurdity or paradox in the idea of God and his relation to the good. It poses a question, assuming that there are only two possible answers. The question is: "Where does good come from?" In relation to God, the only two possible answers are:
  1. "Good" is a standard outside of God to which even God must submit. God calls something good because it really is good.

  2. "Good" is simply what God decides to be good. Something is good only because God calls it good.
The problem with (1) is that it suggests that there is something superior to God - a standard which even he must submit to and which he does not control. This would appear to diminish his divinity.

The problem with (2) is that it suggests that goodness is arbitrary. God says that murder is wrong. But he could have just as well said that murder is good. This makes morality fairly meaningless.

The theist doesn't have to submit to this dilemma because there's a third option. The third option is that "good" is what coheres to God's eternal character. God is good. God is love, he is patient and kind, he is generous, he is beautiful, he is powerful, he values life (he is life), etc... Everything we would normally call "good" really is just some derivative attribute of God and his eternal, unchanging character. God's commands, then, are an expression of his character. They are not based in a standard outside of himself. The standard is himself. And they are not arbitrary because they are based in the most meaningful and enduring reality that there is - the character of the eternal one.

If someone wants to claim that the dilemma has not been solved, I suppose they must show how commands based on God's character are arbitrary. Or they must show how God's character is something outside of himself. Or they must admit there is no dilemma at all.
 

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hopefully this thread will put this tired old dilemma to bed once and for all. Somehow I doubt it will :wink:.

The Euthyphro Dilemma (ED hereon) seeks to show that there is an absurdity or paradox in the idea of God and his relation to the good. It poses a question, assuming that there are only two possible answers. The question is: "Where does good come from?" In relation to God, the only two possible answers are:
  1. "Good" is a standard outside of God to which even God must submit. God calls something good because it really is good.

  2. "Good" is simply what God decides to be good. Something is good only because God calls it good.
The problem with (1) is that it suggests that there is something superior to God - a standard which even he must submit to and which he does not control. This would appear to diminish his divinity.

The problem with (2) is that it suggests that goodness is arbitrary. God says that murder is wrong. But he could have just as well said that murder is good. This makes morality fairly meaningless.

The theist doesn't have to submit to this dilemma because there's a third option. The third option is that "good" is what coheres to God's eternal character. God is good. God is love, he is patient and kind, he is generous, he is beautiful, he is powerful, he values life (he is life), etc... Everything we would normally call "good" really is just some derivative attribute of God and his eternal, unchanging character. God's commands, then, are an expression of his character. They are not based in a standard outside of himself. The standard is himself. And they are not arbitrary because they are based in the most meaningful and enduring reality that there is - the character of the eternal one.

If someone wants to claim that the dilemma has not been solved, I suppose they must show how commands based on God's character are arbitrary. Or they must show how God's character is something outside of himself. Or they must admit there is no dilemma at all.

Right. In the classical orthodox tradition, God's attributes are not accidental, but identical to God's essence. God doesn't exhibit goodness at one time, and not exhibit it at other times (like we might). God is Goodness, simpliciter.

Let atheists demur all they want, but that is the doctrine. If they don't want to address a straw man, they will have to take the doctrine into account in their critique.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Right. In the classical orthodox tradition, God's attributes are not accidental, but identical to God's essence. God doesn't exhibit goodness at one time, and not exhibit it at other times (like we might). God is Goodness, simpliciter.

Let atheists demur all they want, but that is the doctrine. If they don't want to address a straw man, they will have to take the doctrine into account in their critique.

I patiently await the stopping of ears and the grinding of teeth.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If someone wants to claim that the dilemma has not been solved, I suppose they must show how commands based on God's character are arbitrary. Or they must show how God's character is something outside of himself. Or they must admit there is no dilemma at all.

Any attempt to avoid the horns by appealing to some X factor can always be collapsed back to the same question - is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not?

So,

Does Yahweh have control over what his character is? If yes, then it's arbitrary.

Does he not have control over it? Then it is the standard which determines his character, to which he is being compared. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

You have not split the horns of the dilemma.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
God is Goodness, simpliciter.

You can avoid the horns of the dilemma by strictly identifying Yahweh with "good", but you render him superfluous as a concept in doing so. We already have a word for good. It's called "good".
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Any attempt to avoid the horns by appealing to some X factor can always be collapsed back to the same question - is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not?

So,

Does Yahweh have control over what his character is? If yes, then it's arbitrary.

God does not determine his own character. He eternally is whatever he is.

Does he not have control over it? Then it is the standard which determines his character, to which he is being compared. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

God's character is the standard which determines his character? That seems incoherent. Could you dumb it down for me?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You can avoid the horns of the dilemma by strictly identifying Yahweh with "good", but you render him superfluous as a concept in doing so. We already have a word for good. It's called "good".

"Good" is ostensive.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
God's character is the standard which determines his character?

No. If God has no control over his own character, you are right back to the horn of independent standard. Whether you do so consciously or not, you are comparing him to a standard of "good" which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

For anyone reading along, here is a short video explaining what I'm talking about,
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No. If God has no control over his own character, you are right back to the horn of independent standard. Whether you do so consciously or not, you are comparing him to a standard of "good" which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

For anyone reading along, here is a short video explaining what I'm talking about,

I'm happy saying that God is the standard of good. Happily, he always meets that standard. Am I missing something?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No. If God has no control over his own character, you are right back to the horn of independent standard. Whether you do so consciously or not, you are comparing him to a standard of "good" which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

For anyone reading along, here is a short video explaining what I'm talking about,

The talking head in the video says that if God doesn't determine his own nature, then something other than God determine's God's nature. I wonder if he can demonstrate that. What is this other thing that would be determining God's nature? He has not considered the possibility that God's nature is not determined at all. It exists eternally.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What is this other thing that would be determining God's nature?

The standard to which you are comparing him, which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

I'm happy saying that God is the standard of good. Happily, he always meets that standard.

Doesn't solve anything. Is he in control of the standard? Take the horn of arbitrariness. Is he not in control of it? Take the horn of independence.

Am I missing something?

A workable epistemology. But that's a different thread.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
The standard to which you are comparing him, which, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.
To what am I comparing God?

Doesn't solve anything. Is he in control of the standard? Take the horn of arbitrariness. Is he not in control of it? Take the horn of independence.

I say that God's nature is not determined at all. To "determine" something means to cause it to be - whether to cause it to exist or to cause it to be a certain way. God's character is not caused at all. It exists eternally. God cannot determine something that exists eternally. That would be logically impossible. And he is not independent of his character. So I think the dilemma has well been solved.

A workable epistemology. But that's a different thread.
Zing!
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To what am I comparing God?

Whatever your standard for "good" is, since you don't a have a means of reliably gleaning what God's standard is.

Again, you can avoid the horns of the dilemma if you just strictly identify God with "goodness" - not merely a pattern of moral behavior, but the concept of "goodness" itself - but that renders him superfluous, because we already have a perfectly good word for "goodness".
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The Euthyphro Dilemma (ED hereon) seeks to show that there is an absurdity or paradox in the idea of God and his relation to the good. It poses a question, assuming that there are only two possible answers. The question is: "Where does good come from?" In relation to God, the only two possible answers are:
  1. "Good" is a standard outside of God to which even God must submit. God calls something good because it really is good.

  2. "Good" is simply what God decides to be good. Something is good only because God calls it good.
The problem with (1) is that it suggests that there is something superior to God - a standard which even he must submit to and which he does not control. This would appear to diminish his divinity.

The problem with (2) is that it suggests that goodness is arbitrary. God says that murder is wrong. But he could have just as well said that murder is good. This makes morality fairly meaningless.
Thank you. That is a reasonable summary of the dilemma.
The theist doesn't have to submit to this dilemma because there's a third option. The third option is that "good" is what coheres to God's eternal character. God is good. God is love, he is patient and kind, he is generous, he is beautiful, he is powerful, he values life (he is life), etc... Everything we would normally call "good" really is just some derivative attribute of God and his eternal, unchanging character. God's commands, then, are an expression of his character. They are not based in a standard outside of himself. The standard is himself. And they are not arbitrary because they are based in the most meaningful and enduring reality that there is - the character of the eternal one.
This is in fact a fairly well-known apologetic argument that has been made a number of times before. For example, What is the Euthyphro dilemma? Is it a challenge for Christians? | carm.org and What is the solution to Euthyphro's Dilemma?
If someone wants to claim that the dilemma has not been solved, I suppose they must show how commands based on God's character are arbitrary. Or they must show how God's character is something outside of himself. Or they must admit there is no dilemma at all.
The response to this apologetic tactic is known as well. Quite simply, you have not resolved Euthyphro's Dilemma, you have simply restated it in a slightly different form. The skeptic can still ask the same question:
If "God is goodness itself", and morality springs from his intrinsic nature, what does that mean?
Can God's character be pronounced to be good because it can be measured by some external standard? If so, we do not need God, we can simply consult this standard.

But if not, then goodness simply means "what God is." Whatever God was would be good. If God was cruel and unjust, cruelty and injustice would be good. If God was capricious and vindictive, then caprice and vindictiveness would be good.
As you correctly put it above, this "suggests that goodness is arbitrary. God says that murder is wrong. But he could have just as well said that murder is good. This makes morality fairly meaningless."
This is still the case if you say that God's character is the foundation of goodness; just a small change to say "God's character makes murder wrong. But his character could just as easily have made murder right." The obvious question is, how do you know that God's character is indeed good? By what yardstick do you measure it? Itself? That would be circular reasoning.

And so Euthyphro's Dilemma continues...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Whatever your standard for "good" is, since you don't a have a means of reliably gleaning what God's standard is.

I’m saying that God himself is the standard. We can come to know God through his revelation in Scripture and also our own moral sense (we are made in God’s image).

Again, you can avoid the horns of the dilemma if you just strictly identify God with "goodness" - not merely a pattern of moral behavior, but the concept of "goodness" itself - but that renders him superfluous, because we already have a perfectly good word for "goodness".
This isn’t a question of vocabulary. We can keep the word “good” and it’s colloquial usage. This is a question of meta-ethical foundations.
 
Upvote 0